First off it has not been proven, unless I have missed it, that NASA had anything to do with the altered image. It may be illegal to alter an image,
but if NASA did not believe it was done in an attempt to defraud, I doubt they would seek any legal action.

As far as airbrushing /altering of images, I have mentioned this in another thread and will mention here that the older images that NASA has such as
Moon landings etc., are not originally taken as digital images.
These are pictures and negatives that have been scanned in and you can get anomalies during the scanning process.
Also these older photos and negatives do determinate, and some are not necessarily in the best shape when being scanned in to the digital archives,
which can also create anomalies.
I am sure that some of the cheaper methods of digitizing pictures is to take pictures of them as well.
I can not talk on NASA’s behalf on how they digitally archive photos and negatives; I can only point out what I have seen in my experience in
digitizing friends, family, and my own photo and negative collections, where I have never followed the cheaper method, I have thought of doing it when
my scanners were not functioning correctly.
If there are large enough anomalies, I have been known to airbrush/alter the images, before and some times after the scanning process, to try and hide
them, but do not bother with smaller ones since most of those can only be seen when scrutinized, at that point who cares?

So I guess we're NEVER gonna be shown a verifiable NASA image that was altered with intent to defraud -- or any other intent. Instead, we get whines
about how refusing to be deflected off the central theme of this thread is somehow 'dodging' questions.

As usual, a good give-and-take such as this shows clearly to new visitors which posters are seeking elucidation, and which thrive on obscuration.

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
I would not only like Obergs views on these pictures but also ArMap and Phage, after all when the moon buildings topic arises these pictures are
always put forward as evidence.

I know it's off-topic and I have posted about these images many times, but as it was asked politely and the
original subject looks like going nowhere, I will answer.

Those images are not real images, they are created "on the fly" when we ask for an image from those coordinates. What happens then is that the
server looks for the images needed to show the desired area from a group of images that were made with the original images and compressed using a
wavelet compression system, and I think the problem appears when areas that were not available for some reason and would show as black rectangles were
considered by the compression algorithm as part of the image, and it tried to compress the image with the black rectangle included, resulting in those
areas that look like they had both sides stretched over the area where the missing data was.

One thing that I find interesting (and one of the reasons I do not consider Skipper a trustworthy investigator) is that when he made that
"discovery" the original data used to create the Clementine browser was already available on-line (since 2002), and still is, for everyone to see,
at several PDS sites, like here, where anyone can see the 203 CDs with
the photos.

This volume is one of those CDs and it shows the
area from the first photo on Skipper's site, and as you can see in the following image, made with the four images that are needed to recreate that
area, not only are the real images bigger, there are no strange polygons in them.

(click for full size)

The original IMG files have an even higher resolution, so the image cannot be uploaded to the ATS Media Portal, you can see it by clicking in
this link and choosing the "Original Size" button on the
page.

You can also see in the image made with the original IMG images that they are made with several smaller images, some with a lower resolution.

PS: I think that there are better versions of this area, I chose the first filter available, I think it was the ultraviolet, sorry for that.

Okay, I'm lost! I hear what ArMap has said but I still am none the wiser! I look at the pictures and see a dark object which seems to have had a fog
placed over it to obscure what is really there. . . Is it just me or does anyone else see this?
Also, consider this. These same pictures have been used on the Moon Rising film which can be seen on youtube. Are we honestly saying that the makers
of that film didn't consider all possibilities, including the explanation that ArMap has put forward, before they released their movie?

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
Also, consider this. These same pictures have been used on the Moon Rising film which can be seen on youtube. Are we honestly saying that the makers
of that film didn't consider all possibilities, including the explanation that ArMap has put forward, before they released their movie?

Umm, duh. In order to even consider the moon landing having been a hoax you have to conveniently ignore a LOT of data.

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
Also, consider this. These same pictures have been used on the Moon Rising film which can be seen on youtube. Are we honestly saying that the makers
of that film didn't consider all possibilities, including the explanation that ArMap has put forward, before they released their movie?

Umm, duh. In order to even consider the moon landing having been a hoax you have to conveniently ignore a LOT of data.

I don't believe the moon landing was a hoax! Where on earth did you get that idea from? "Duhhh!"
I'm asking whether or not the makers of the film, Moon Rising, considered ArMaps explanation for why some of the moon pictures have areas that appear
to be fogged or purposefully smudged to ensure that whatever is beneath the said fogging remains hidden from view. ArMap may well be right but did the
film makers consider this or, indeed, have access to the same information?

Weedwhacker I see your post addressed to Jim Oberg but since there are other people besides Jim reading this thread ( like me), I have to ask, what is
it you're showing? And is there a source besides Zorgon? Maybe Jim will know what your post means but I don't get it.

It seems like the whole merry-go-round on this thread has been posting stuff from other sources than NASA and claiming NASA did it. Now here is yet
another post with no links that I can see pointing back to NASA? Please help my friend.

In any case, having done a little editing myself, I've made one or two errors, so I could see editing errors happening. I guess it's not quite the
same as intentionally faking a picture, right?

Isn't that the same people who did the whole rods thing? If I'm not mistaken this was the youtube video where they used those nasa still images and
then added moving objects on top of them to make 'aliens' on moons. If that's the people then they've ignored all reason and scientific data and
are in on it just to make money from suckers

Isn't that the same people who did the whole rods thing? If I'm not mistaken this was the youtube video where they used those nasa still images and
then added moving objects on top of them to make 'aliens' on moons. If that's the people then they've ignored all reason and scientific data and
are in on it just to make money from suckers

Yes, it is the same guy who produced the video about rods. However, the problem I have at this moment is that I had assumed that the pictures of the
moon which had the airbrushing fog to hide things on the moon belonged to NASA. Now I find they weren't so perhaps ArMap, Phage and Oberg are right
that NASA have never retouched a picture of the moon!? However, I think other agencies have.I still think we are being lied to about the moon but I'm
open to the question whether it may or not be down entirely to NASA. . .

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
Now I find they weren't so perhaps ArMap, Phage and Oberg are right that NASA have never retouched a picture of the moon!?

As I said in my first post on this thread, I have seen at least two photos on NASA sites that were altered.

One of those I do not remember what it was, but the other case was this
one, and it shows that we cannot really trust NASA photos that are not on the sites meant for the scientific community. I have never seen
anything suspicious in those sites.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.